JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is taken up and disposed of.
2. It is from an order of an Hon'ble Single Judge dated 10.2.2005 wherein his Lordship has quashed the selection and appointment of one Gyan Pratap Singh, who was respondent no. 5 in the Court below. The only reason for quashing is his relationship to the Village Pradhan. It is an admitted case that the appellant at the material time was the husband's brother's son, i.e. the brother-in-law's son of the Village Pradhan, who was a lady.
3. The only provision of law which is material for our consideration, is the explanation of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 165 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. sab-rule (4) prohibits the appointment of a Panchayat member's 'Relation' to any post ((SIC) servants (SIC)).
4. The said explanation is set out below:-
"Explanation-- The word "relation" in the proviso means father, grand-father, father-in-law, maternal or paternal uncle, son, grandson, son-in-law, brother, nephew, first cousin, brother-in-law, sister's husband, wife, wife's brother, son of nephew".
5. We are of the clear opinion that the explanation is not illustrative but exhaustive. The wordings of the explanation indicates that the wording 'relation' is restricted in its meaning to the particular relationships which are mentioned in the explanation and not otherwise. It would not be open to the Court to find out different degrees or items of prohibition, which are not mentioned in the Rules.
6. A simple reading of the explanation shows that although brother-in-law is a prohibited relation, brother-in-law's son is not a prohibited relation.
7. The only submission, which deserves any mention from the side of the respondents, is that brother-in-law's son is a nephew and, therefore, a prohibited relationship.
8. We are unable to accede what a nephew is best understood by looking at a helpful chart of consanguinity given in Schedule I of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It would be seen there that a brother's son is a nephew but it is quite difficult from the son of the brother-in-law.
9. A brother and a brother-in-law, in relation to proximity of relationship, are extremely wide apart. If the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is considered, it would be seen that a brother is at Item No. (3) of Head II of Class II of the Schedule, but a brother-in-law is not much of a relationship at all, from the point of view of an inheritance of property. We are aware that these property legislations should not be placed too much reliance upon when the Court is construing word 'relations' given in a Rule, which is meant to prohibit nepotism rather than prohibit only some technically proximate relation from being appointed. But the words used in the explanation are English words, which have specific meaning both in the dictionary and in the law, and help taken from these sources cannot be wholly brushed aside.
10. It is important to note that from the point of view of the Indian Succession Act, Chart, the nephew of the wife would be the wife's brother's son, who would be quite a different person than the brother's son of the wife's husband, i.e. brother-in-law's son.
11. However, if The Concise Oxford Dictionary is to be consulted, the meaning of nephew as given in the 1995 edition is as follows:
Nephew; a son of one's brother or sister, or of one's brother-in-law or sister-in-law.
12. The Indian Succession Act, therefore, speaks with a different voice from The Concise Oxford Dictionary; dictionaries speak with the same voice and Black's Dictionary defines nephew as the son of one's brother or sister, or one's brother-in-law or sister-in-law.
13. The reason for this difference is not far to see; when one is looking at the Indian Succession Act, one is judging the descent of property, which has everything to do with blood relationship.
14. The dictionaries, however, refer to the common parlance and, therefore, the reference to one's brother-in-law's son as a nephew, would be quite right, say, in a social conversation, although not quite so right, if a lawyer were referring to that relationship in his arguments made to a judge in a Court of law.
15. On the basis of these materials we have to take a decision whether the explanation to Rules 165 prohibits a brother-in-law's son by prohibiting a nephew. We are unable to opine that in that explanation nephew includes a brother-in-law's son. We give a legally restricted meaning to the word nephew rather than give it a socially wide meaning; where people's rights are involved and curtailment of the eligibility to appointment in a Panchayat is concerned, the prohibition has to be clear and accurate before a person can be barred from entering into a Panchayat service.
16. We are also of the opinion that if the Rule making authorities were minded to stop a member's brother-in-law's son from being inducted in the same Panchayat, it would have specifically said so by prohibiting a brother-in-law's son, as it has prohibited a nephew's son by express mention.
17. In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed and the quashing of the appellant's appointment and selection is set aside. The appellant shall function hereafter in accordance with law.